|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 28 2019 13:46 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2019 10:27 JimmiC wrote:
The big issue is trust, which Barr does not have with 55%+ of American's. If they do this I hope they get someone imparial or at least can claim to be impartial. Otherwise it is just a political stunt that will further divide the nation. This isn't really an issue. Barr doesn't need the public's trust to do what he needs to do. And as he starts doing it and more information on what really happened becomes public, the leaks and anonymous tipping to media won't have any impact. The FBI, CIA, and other resisting agencies are ultimately powerless to stop Barr. Barr holds all of the cards now. He has ultimate authority to declassify documents courtesy of Trump. He has grand jury investigative and indictment powers. He will get the answer to any question that he wants to ask. And none of the questions that he's asking right now have answers that either democrats or the agencies want to be made public. By all reports, the first round of declassification will occur this week, and potentially as soon as tomorrow. Everyone's going to get to see why the rats are scurrying soon enough.
I saw that Gowdy publicly stated that there transcripts containing exculpating evidence (which is interesting that he would reveal this since the existence of the transcripts is classified). That seems to be referring to transcripts of Papadopoulos or other targets of the investigation. Besides those, there are allegedly addition FISA warrants besides Page's. The existence of those is also classified, which means there are illegal classified leaks going on in conservative outlets right now.
All that said, the content of what barr reveals will either stand on it's own as evidence of wrongdoing or it wont. There does need to be some sort of opportunity for rebuttal though, since barr has shown a political inclination and is about to publicly release some, but presumably not all, of the investigative actions that were taken. So if there was info suggesting a legitimate basis for the investigation (i.e., info that leans in favor of the investigatiors, which includes Steele's ongoing cooperation with the FBI on unrelated cases which had produced reliable results) he should reveal that too. For example even as Steele was working on his Fusion GPS work, he was working with the FBi on other Russia related cases. And in the past he had worked on the FIFA corruption case. So if barrs releases omit that info, I can only conclude that barr is acting in a partisan manner.
|
|
|
On May 29 2019 01:51 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2019 01:35 Acrofales wrote:On May 29 2019 00:49 Sermokala wrote:
The caping overtime accrual just seems anti-labor. I get cutting spending for "military exercises" but a lot of overtime for police departments (at least outside of major cities) is actually mandatory for the department to fill. I remember my dad having to get an apartment near the airport after 9/11 and the mandatory shifts for fighting drunk driving have only gone up in the decade's sense MADD came around.
I think that the "abolish the police" campaign reforms mostly the reality of what police do in exchange for the image of what they want to get rid of. I really don't get the desire to change one police department for a dozen specialized departments doing the same thing but with less resources for the problems. Most of the problems it attempts to solve would be with just more funding and instead of asking for that they want to go the long way around and make a new order that is less efficient causes more problems and costs more.
The way that police departments work at least outside of the major cities is that the city contracts with the union in order for a set amount of shifts that the union needs to fill. Making overtime mandatory for the union is a way for these cities to save money. When the city needs security or parking assistance for events like a county fair they add that into the contract. The overtime shifts are first offered to the people on top of seniority and are forced to be filled by the lowest of seniority if it doesn't get filled by the people above them. Oh, I understood that as both only applying to military training. If they were 2 separate proposals then I also disagree with capping overtime accrual. E: I also agree with GH here that the idea of making overtime mandatory so you can have less policemen is simply terrible practice, and just because it was "always done this way" is a terrible reason to continue doing it. Oh, and just to hook back to the ongoing discussion. I don't really see how any of the green points in that list are "abolitionist". They just seem like sensible measures to combat obvious problems in the way the police force currently works. How are these measures of abolition (other than the last one: less police), rather than reforms? The solution to making overtime not mandatory is to hire more cops. Which is also something that GH is against. It only became a practice beacuse communities didn't want to hire more cops. And it only became a common practice after 9/11 and MADD.
The solution from my perspective is to recognize how much resources are wasted to maintain and reinforce idealized perceptions of what police do in the first place and address that. Hiring more police doesn't even begin to recognize the problem of their ineffectiveness at what they are tasked with regardless of funding because it's not a funding issue.
Regardless, zeroing in on any one particular reform misses the forest for the trees.
It's not my chart (in that I didn't create it with my ideas), the point was to provide an example of the general concept of reforms that empower and preserve an institution, and non-reformist reforms which are intended to weaken the institution which is identified as flawed beyond repair.
Any or all of them can be improved or replaced with better ideas/iterations but the concept remains.
|
On May 29 2019 01:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2019 01:51 Sermokala wrote:On May 29 2019 01:35 Acrofales wrote:On May 29 2019 00:49 Sermokala wrote:
The caping overtime accrual just seems anti-labor. I get cutting spending for "military exercises" but a lot of overtime for police departments (at least outside of major cities) is actually mandatory for the department to fill. I remember my dad having to get an apartment near the airport after 9/11 and the mandatory shifts for fighting drunk driving have only gone up in the decade's sense MADD came around.
I think that the "abolish the police" campaign reforms mostly the reality of what police do in exchange for the image of what they want to get rid of. I really don't get the desire to change one police department for a dozen specialized departments doing the same thing but with less resources for the problems. Most of the problems it attempts to solve would be with just more funding and instead of asking for that they want to go the long way around and make a new order that is less efficient causes more problems and costs more.
The way that police departments work at least outside of the major cities is that the city contracts with the union in order for a set amount of shifts that the union needs to fill. Making overtime mandatory for the union is a way for these cities to save money. When the city needs security or parking assistance for events like a county fair they add that into the contract. The overtime shifts are first offered to the people on top of seniority and are forced to be filled by the lowest of seniority if it doesn't get filled by the people above them. Oh, I understood that as both only applying to military training. If they were 2 separate proposals then I also disagree with capping overtime accrual. E: I also agree with GH here that the idea of making overtime mandatory so you can have less policemen is simply terrible practice, and just because it was "always done this way" is a terrible reason to continue doing it. Oh, and just to hook back to the ongoing discussion. I don't really see how any of the green points in that list are "abolitionist". They just seem like sensible measures to combat obvious problems in the way the police force currently works. How are these measures of abolition (other than the last one: less police), rather than reforms? The solution to making overtime not mandatory is to hire more cops. Which is also something that GH is against. It only became a practice beacuse communities didn't want to hire more cops. And it only became a common practice after 9/11 and MADD. The solution from my perspective is to recognize how much resources are wasted to maintain and reinforce idealized perceptions of what police do in the first place and address that. Hiring more police doesn't even begin to recognize the problem of their ineffectiveness at what they are tasked with regardless of funding because it's not a funding issue. Regardless, zeroing in on any one particular reform misses the forest for the trees.
And when you say "wasted to maintain and reinforce idealized perceptions of what police do" I think you miss the whole structure of how police departments work. They send out police officers in cars to patrol areas in order to have a somewhat reasonable response time for when people call 911 or as a deterrent for a crime.
Now I've seen how you belive that you should never call emergency services beacuse they only cause problems but someone has to show up to scenes before the firefighters and ambulances. Do you think that They are wasted in this role? is it the "loitering around waiting for something to happen" part you think is wasteful?
I mean we can hopefully both agree that they're needed for traffic-related work but the unfortunate side effect of traffic is that people drive cars everywhere so cops have to go everywhere. Do you think that cops are being wasted in enforcing traffic laws?
Like I keep hearing all these vague statements about how the police are bad and the replacement would be so much better but I really don't see where you are going with these solutions.
Can you please paint for me the Idealized interaction with cops that your not-reform reforms are going to give us?
|
On May 29 2019 01:51 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2019 13:46 xDaunt wrote:On May 28 2019 10:27 JimmiC wrote:
The big issue is trust, which Barr does not have with 55%+ of American's. If they do this I hope they get someone imparial or at least can claim to be impartial. Otherwise it is just a political stunt that will further divide the nation. This isn't really an issue. Barr doesn't need the public's trust to do what he needs to do. And as he starts doing it and more information on what really happened becomes public, the leaks and anonymous tipping to media won't have any impact. The FBI, CIA, and other resisting agencies are ultimately powerless to stop Barr. Barr holds all of the cards now. He has ultimate authority to declassify documents courtesy of Trump. He has grand jury investigative and indictment powers. He will get the answer to any question that he wants to ask. And none of the questions that he's asking right now have answers that either democrats or the agencies want to be made public. By all reports, the first round of declassification will occur this week, and potentially as soon as tomorrow. Everyone's going to get to see why the rats are scurrying soon enough. I saw that Gowdy publicly stated that there transcripts containing exculpating evidence (which is interesting that he would reveal this since the existence of the transcripts is classified). That seems to be referring to transcripts of Papadopoulos or other targets of the investigation. Besides those, there are allegedly addition FISA warrants besides Page's. The existence of those is also classified, which means there are illegal classified leaks going on in conservative outlets right now. All that said, the content of what barr reveals will either stand on it's own as evidence of wrongdoing or it wont. There does need to be some sort of opportunity for rebuttal though, since barr has shown a political inclination and is about to publicly release some, but presumably not all, of the investigative actions that were taken. So if there was info suggesting a legitimate basis for the investigation (i.e., info that leans in favor of the investigatiors, which includes Steele's ongoing cooperation with the FBI on unrelated cases which had produced reliable results) he should reveal that too. For example even as Steele was working on his Fusion GPS work, he was working with the FBi on other Russia related cases. And in the past he had worked on the FIFA corruption case. So if barrs releases omit that info, I can only conclude that barr is acting in a partisan manner.
I'm not worried about Barr being selective with declassification and public publication. To the extent that there is any information that he looks at that supports what the FBI/CIA did (ie exonerating evidence), he's obliged to disclose it, otherwise his criminal prosecutions will fall apart as a matter of law. And again, he's going to be going after people who know everything that's out there. So it's not like he can hide anything.
|
United States42237 Posts
On May 29 2019 01:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2019 01:35 Acrofales wrote:On May 29 2019 00:49 Sermokala wrote:
The caping overtime accrual just seems anti-labor. I get cutting spending for "military exercises" but a lot of overtime for police departments (at least outside of major cities) is actually mandatory for the department to fill. I remember my dad having to get an apartment near the airport after 9/11 and the mandatory shifts for fighting drunk driving have only gone up in the decade's sense MADD came around.
I think that the "abolish the police" campaign reforms mostly the reality of what police do in exchange for the image of what they want to get rid of. I really don't get the desire to change one police department for a dozen specialized departments doing the same thing but with less resources for the problems. Most of the problems it attempts to solve would be with just more funding and instead of asking for that they want to go the long way around and make a new order that is less efficient causes more problems and costs more.
The way that police departments work at least outside of the major cities is that the city contracts with the union in order for a set amount of shifts that the union needs to fill. Making overtime mandatory for the union is a way for these cities to save money. When the city needs security or parking assistance for events like a county fair they add that into the contract. The overtime shifts are first offered to the people on top of seniority and are forced to be filled by the lowest of seniority if it doesn't get filled by the people above them. Oh, I understood that as both only applying to military training. If they were 2 separate proposals then I also disagree with capping overtime accrual. E: I also agree with GH here that the idea of making overtime mandatory so you can have less policemen is simply terrible practice, and just because it was "always done this way" is a terrible reason to continue doing it. Oh, and just to hook back to the ongoing discussion. I don't really see how any of the green points in that list are "abolitionist". They just seem like sensible measures to combat obvious problems in the way the police force currently works. How are these measures of abolition (other than the last one: less police), rather than reforms? The delineation between reforms and non-reformist reforms is basically that reforms attempt to preserve the failed institutions (these are Warren's pro-capitalism reforms for example) whereas things that undermine and weaken the failed institutions while empowering the masses fall into the realm of non-reformist reforms. Non-reformist reforms are largely seen (at least from what I've seen) as a way to help reformists transition into revolutionaries and weakening the system that will resist them/empowering the masses in the process.
Surely malpolicing insurance is a free market solution that attempts to use market forces to make good police work economically rational for law enforcement. That’s the private prisons approach to policing.
|
On May 29 2019 02:06 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2019 01:51 Doodsmack wrote:On May 28 2019 13:46 xDaunt wrote:On May 28 2019 10:27 JimmiC wrote:
The big issue is trust, which Barr does not have with 55%+ of American's. If they do this I hope they get someone imparial or at least can claim to be impartial. Otherwise it is just a political stunt that will further divide the nation. This isn't really an issue. Barr doesn't need the public's trust to do what he needs to do. And as he starts doing it and more information on what really happened becomes public, the leaks and anonymous tipping to media won't have any impact. The FBI, CIA, and other resisting agencies are ultimately powerless to stop Barr. Barr holds all of the cards now. He has ultimate authority to declassify documents courtesy of Trump. He has grand jury investigative and indictment powers. He will get the answer to any question that he wants to ask. And none of the questions that he's asking right now have answers that either democrats or the agencies want to be made public. By all reports, the first round of declassification will occur this week, and potentially as soon as tomorrow. Everyone's going to get to see why the rats are scurrying soon enough. I saw that Gowdy publicly stated that there transcripts containing exculpating evidence (which is interesting that he would reveal this since the existence of the transcripts is classified). That seems to be referring to transcripts of Papadopoulos or other targets of the investigation. Besides those, there are allegedly addition FISA warrants besides Page's. The existence of those is also classified, which means there are illegal classified leaks going on in conservative outlets right now. All that said, the content of what barr reveals will either stand on it's own as evidence of wrongdoing or it wont. There does need to be some sort of opportunity for rebuttal though, since barr has shown a political inclination and is about to publicly release some, but presumably not all, of the investigative actions that were taken. So if there was info suggesting a legitimate basis for the investigation (i.e., info that leans in favor of the investigatiors, which includes Steele's ongoing cooperation with the FBI on unrelated cases which had produced reliable results) he should reveal that too. For example even as Steele was working on his Fusion GPS work, he was working with the FBi on other Russia related cases. And in the past he had worked on the FIFA corruption case. So if barrs releases omit that info, I can only conclude that barr is acting in a partisan manner. I'm not worried about Barr being selective with declassification and public publication. To the extent that there is any information that he looks at that supports what the FBI/CIA did (ie exonerating evidence), he's obliged to disclose it, otherwise his criminal prosecutions will fall apart as a matter of law. And again, he's going to be going after people who know everything that's out there. So it's not like he can hide anything. Except if his goal is not criminal prosecution but public disinformation in an attempt to discredit the investigation into Trump's obstruction of justice and make people forget/ignore the very real things that that investigation found.
|
On May 29 2019 02:06 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2019 01:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 29 2019 01:51 Sermokala wrote:On May 29 2019 01:35 Acrofales wrote:On May 29 2019 00:49 Sermokala wrote:
The caping overtime accrual just seems anti-labor. I get cutting spending for "military exercises" but a lot of overtime for police departments (at least outside of major cities) is actually mandatory for the department to fill. I remember my dad having to get an apartment near the airport after 9/11 and the mandatory shifts for fighting drunk driving have only gone up in the decade's sense MADD came around.
I think that the "abolish the police" campaign reforms mostly the reality of what police do in exchange for the image of what they want to get rid of. I really don't get the desire to change one police department for a dozen specialized departments doing the same thing but with less resources for the problems. Most of the problems it attempts to solve would be with just more funding and instead of asking for that they want to go the long way around and make a new order that is less efficient causes more problems and costs more.
The way that police departments work at least outside of the major cities is that the city contracts with the union in order for a set amount of shifts that the union needs to fill. Making overtime mandatory for the union is a way for these cities to save money. When the city needs security or parking assistance for events like a county fair they add that into the contract. The overtime shifts are first offered to the people on top of seniority and are forced to be filled by the lowest of seniority if it doesn't get filled by the people above them. Oh, I understood that as both only applying to military training. If they were 2 separate proposals then I also disagree with capping overtime accrual. E: I also agree with GH here that the idea of making overtime mandatory so you can have less policemen is simply terrible practice, and just because it was "always done this way" is a terrible reason to continue doing it. Oh, and just to hook back to the ongoing discussion. I don't really see how any of the green points in that list are "abolitionist". They just seem like sensible measures to combat obvious problems in the way the police force currently works. How are these measures of abolition (other than the last one: less police), rather than reforms? The solution to making overtime not mandatory is to hire more cops. Which is also something that GH is against. It only became a practice beacuse communities didn't want to hire more cops. And it only became a common practice after 9/11 and MADD. The solution from my perspective is to recognize how much resources are wasted to maintain and reinforce idealized perceptions of what police do in the first place and address that. Hiring more police doesn't even begin to recognize the problem of their ineffectiveness at what they are tasked with regardless of funding because it's not a funding issue. Regardless, zeroing in on any one particular reform misses the forest for the trees. And when you say "wasted to maintain and reinforce idealized perceptions of what police do" I think you miss the whole structure of how police departments work. They send out police officers in cars to patrol areas in order to have a somewhat reasonable response time for when people call 911 or as a deterrent for a crime.
I'm telling you that the statistics and best available research don't support the conclusions your asserting as a fact I'm missing. If they do, I didn't see them in my research, and I've posted contrary examples to that assertion before. This is why I've consistently mentioned the part of my position that you (and others) are basing their argument off of hegemonic myths that don't match the best available data or practices.
Now I've seen how you belive that you should never call emergency services beacuse they only cause problems but someone has to show up to scenes before the firefighters and ambulances. Do you think that They are wasted in this role? is it the "loitering around waiting for something to happen" part you think is wasteful?
The reality is when police come to scenes with Black people they have a tendency to treat us like the suspect (which means criminal basically) rather than the victim or even hero.
I mean we can hopefully both agree that they're needed for traffic-related work but the unfortunate side effect of traffic is that people drive cars everywhere so cops have to go everywhere. Do you think that cops are being wasted in enforcing traffic laws?
I don't think their presence or work has the impact you think it does or that the research supports your position. Yes. I think traffic enforcement as it exists is extremely problematic and functions far more as a revenue source, poverty tax, and a lot of other things that aren't improving the safety or efficiency of traffic.
Like I keep hearing all these vague statements about how the police are bad and the replacement would be so much better but I really don't see where you are going with these solutions.
I'm telling you your solutions have and continue to fail at the cost of lives, freedom, and justice and you need to join me in solving them rather than me come back to the reform camp and solve it within your acceptable range of actions.
|
On May 29 2019 02:09 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2019 01:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 29 2019 01:35 Acrofales wrote:On May 29 2019 00:49 Sermokala wrote:
The caping overtime accrual just seems anti-labor. I get cutting spending for "military exercises" but a lot of overtime for police departments (at least outside of major cities) is actually mandatory for the department to fill. I remember my dad having to get an apartment near the airport after 9/11 and the mandatory shifts for fighting drunk driving have only gone up in the decade's sense MADD came around.
I think that the "abolish the police" campaign reforms mostly the reality of what police do in exchange for the image of what they want to get rid of. I really don't get the desire to change one police department for a dozen specialized departments doing the same thing but with less resources for the problems. Most of the problems it attempts to solve would be with just more funding and instead of asking for that they want to go the long way around and make a new order that is less efficient causes more problems and costs more.
The way that police departments work at least outside of the major cities is that the city contracts with the union in order for a set amount of shifts that the union needs to fill. Making overtime mandatory for the union is a way for these cities to save money. When the city needs security or parking assistance for events like a county fair they add that into the contract. The overtime shifts are first offered to the people on top of seniority and are forced to be filled by the lowest of seniority if it doesn't get filled by the people above them. Oh, I understood that as both only applying to military training. If they were 2 separate proposals then I also disagree with capping overtime accrual. E: I also agree with GH here that the idea of making overtime mandatory so you can have less policemen is simply terrible practice, and just because it was "always done this way" is a terrible reason to continue doing it. Oh, and just to hook back to the ongoing discussion. I don't really see how any of the green points in that list are "abolitionist". They just seem like sensible measures to combat obvious problems in the way the police force currently works. How are these measures of abolition (other than the last one: less police), rather than reforms? The delineation between reforms and non-reformist reforms is basically that reforms attempt to preserve the failed institutions (these are Warren's pro-capitalism reforms for example) whereas things that undermine and weaken the failed institutions while empowering the masses fall into the realm of non-reformist reforms. Non-reformist reforms are largely seen (at least from what I've seen) as a way to help reformists transition into revolutionaries and weakening the system that will resist them/empowering the masses in the process. Surely malpolicing insurance is a free market solution that attempts to use market forces to make good police work economically rational for law enforcement. That’s the private prisons approach to policing.
How does malpolicing insurance solve anything? Lets say you *have* malpolicing insurance, and you get beaten up by a cop. The whole department covers for him. The insurance concludes that "well, that obviously wasn't malpolicing, but just regular policing. Can't help you" and everything continues as it was, except that you're paying however many USD a month for insurance that does nothing.
Sounds like a scam, not a free market solution to anything.
|
Oh ok So just more vague statements supported by inconclusive and broad studies that support arguments that aren't grounded in reality in the slightest.
And you want to convince people with that. Good luck.
|
On May 29 2019 02:14 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2019 02:06 xDaunt wrote:On May 29 2019 01:51 Doodsmack wrote:On May 28 2019 13:46 xDaunt wrote:On May 28 2019 10:27 JimmiC wrote:
The big issue is trust, which Barr does not have with 55%+ of American's. If they do this I hope they get someone imparial or at least can claim to be impartial. Otherwise it is just a political stunt that will further divide the nation. This isn't really an issue. Barr doesn't need the public's trust to do what he needs to do. And as he starts doing it and more information on what really happened becomes public, the leaks and anonymous tipping to media won't have any impact. The FBI, CIA, and other resisting agencies are ultimately powerless to stop Barr. Barr holds all of the cards now. He has ultimate authority to declassify documents courtesy of Trump. He has grand jury investigative and indictment powers. He will get the answer to any question that he wants to ask. And none of the questions that he's asking right now have answers that either democrats or the agencies want to be made public. By all reports, the first round of declassification will occur this week, and potentially as soon as tomorrow. Everyone's going to get to see why the rats are scurrying soon enough. I saw that Gowdy publicly stated that there transcripts containing exculpating evidence (which is interesting that he would reveal this since the existence of the transcripts is classified). That seems to be referring to transcripts of Papadopoulos or other targets of the investigation. Besides those, there are allegedly addition FISA warrants besides Page's. The existence of those is also classified, which means there are illegal classified leaks going on in conservative outlets right now. All that said, the content of what barr reveals will either stand on it's own as evidence of wrongdoing or it wont. There does need to be some sort of opportunity for rebuttal though, since barr has shown a political inclination and is about to publicly release some, but presumably not all, of the investigative actions that were taken. So if there was info suggesting a legitimate basis for the investigation (i.e., info that leans in favor of the investigatiors, which includes Steele's ongoing cooperation with the FBI on unrelated cases which had produced reliable results) he should reveal that too. For example even as Steele was working on his Fusion GPS work, he was working with the FBi on other Russia related cases. And in the past he had worked on the FIFA corruption case. So if barrs releases omit that info, I can only conclude that barr is acting in a partisan manner. I'm not worried about Barr being selective with declassification and public publication. To the extent that there is any information that he looks at that supports what the FBI/CIA did (ie exonerating evidence), he's obliged to disclose it, otherwise his criminal prosecutions will fall apart as a matter of law. And again, he's going to be going after people who know everything that's out there. So it's not like he can hide anything. Except if his goal is not criminal prosecution but public disinformation in an attempt to discredit the investigation into Trump's obstruction of justice and make people forget/ignore the very real things that that investigation found.
I don't think that Barr came back into public service just to be another one of the President's PR people. He's a lawyer's lawyer. I honestly think that he is salivating at the opportunity that is before him to do the kind of legal work and criminal prosecution that will be remembered for generations. Bagging the corrupt former leaders of multiple intelligence and law enforcement agencies would instantly become the preeminent prosecutorial accomplishment in American history. The only prosecutions that I can think of and which would would be in the same category (or higher) would be the post-WW2 war crimes trials at Nuremburg and Tokyo. It's that big of a deal.
|
On May 29 2019 02:26 Sermokala wrote:
Oh ok So just more vague statements supported by inconclusive and broad studies that support arguments that aren't grounded in reality in the slightest.
And you want to convince people with that. Good luck.
I'd like to convince people that wasn't vague and would be less so if you quoted it so people would see it instead of your (I would argue) wholly inaccurate summation of it. Also convince them that not agreeing dooms us all to a horrific future according to the best available climate data and interferes/prevents the very reforms they say they want.
I don't think this
+ Show Spoiler +On May 29 2019 02:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2019 02:06 Sermokala wrote:On May 29 2019 01:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 29 2019 01:51 Sermokala wrote:On May 29 2019 01:35 Acrofales wrote:On May 29 2019 00:49 Sermokala wrote:
The caping overtime accrual just seems anti-labor. I get cutting spending for "military exercises" but a lot of overtime for police departments (at least outside of major cities) is actually mandatory for the department to fill. I remember my dad having to get an apartment near the airport after 9/11 and the mandatory shifts for fighting drunk driving have only gone up in the decade's sense MADD came around.
I think that the "abolish the police" campaign reforms mostly the reality of what police do in exchange for the image of what they want to get rid of. I really don't get the desire to change one police department for a dozen specialized departments doing the same thing but with less resources for the problems. Most of the problems it attempts to solve would be with just more funding and instead of asking for that they want to go the long way around and make a new order that is less efficient causes more problems and costs more.
The way that police departments work at least outside of the major cities is that the city contracts with the union in order for a set amount of shifts that the union needs to fill. Making overtime mandatory for the union is a way for these cities to save money. When the city needs security or parking assistance for events like a county fair they add that into the contract. The overtime shifts are first offered to the people on top of seniority and are forced to be filled by the lowest of seniority if it doesn't get filled by the people above them. Oh, I understood that as both only applying to military training. If they were 2 separate proposals then I also disagree with capping overtime accrual. E: I also agree with GH here that the idea of making overtime mandatory so you can have less policemen is simply terrible practice, and just because it was "always done this way" is a terrible reason to continue doing it. Oh, and just to hook back to the ongoing discussion. I don't really see how any of the green points in that list are "abolitionist". They just seem like sensible measures to combat obvious problems in the way the police force currently works. How are these measures of abolition (other than the last one: less police), rather than reforms? The solution to making overtime not mandatory is to hire more cops. Which is also something that GH is against. It only became a practice beacuse communities didn't want to hire more cops. And it only became a common practice after 9/11 and MADD. The solution from my perspective is to recognize how much resources are wasted to maintain and reinforce idealized perceptions of what police do in the first place and address that. Hiring more police doesn't even begin to recognize the problem of their ineffectiveness at what they are tasked with regardless of funding because it's not a funding issue. Regardless, zeroing in on any one particular reform misses the forest for the trees. And when you say "wasted to maintain and reinforce idealized perceptions of what police do" I think you miss the whole structure of how police departments work. They send out police officers in cars to patrol areas in order to have a somewhat reasonable response time for when people call 911 or as a deterrent for a crime. I'm telling you that the statistics and best available research don't support the conclusions your asserting as a fact I'm missing. If they do, I didn't see them in my research, and I've posted contrary examples to that assertion before. This is why I've consistently mentioned the part of my position that you (and others) are basing their argument off of hegemonic myths that don't match the best available data or practices. Show nested quote +Now I've seen how you belive that you should never call emergency services beacuse they only cause problems but someone has to show up to scenes before the firefighters and ambulances. Do you think that They are wasted in this role? is it the "loitering around waiting for something to happen" part you think is wasteful? The reality is when police come to scenes with Black people they have a tendency to treat us like the suspect (which means criminal basically) rather than the victim or even hero. Show nested quote +I mean we can hopefully both agree that they're needed for traffic-related work but the unfortunate side effect of traffic is that people drive cars everywhere so cops have to go everywhere. Do you think that cops are being wasted in enforcing traffic laws? I don't think their presence or work has the impact you think it does or that the research supports your position. Yes. I think traffic enforcement as it exists is extremely problematic and functions far more as a revenue source, poverty tax, and a lot of other things that aren't improving the safety or efficiency of traffic. Show nested quote +Like I keep hearing all these vague statements about how the police are bad and the replacement would be so much better but I really don't see where you are going with these solutions. I'm telling you your solutions have and continue to fail at the cost of lives, freedom, and justice and you need to join me in solving them rather than me come back to the reform camp and solve it within your acceptable range of actions.
is vague at all, and simply asserting it is doesn't make it so.
|
I ask you for the most basic of examples of what you want and provide examples of venue after venue to present on what you want. Instead, you repeat vauge mantras of "its flawed therefore it should die" and "we don't need to enforce traffic laws for people to follow them" and "I'm morally right, therefore, you should agree with me"
Just describe a single interaction with police that you belive will come from your not-reform reforms.
|
On May 29 2019 02:45 Sermokala wrote:
I ask you for the most basic of examples of what you want and provide examples of venue after venue to present on what you want. Instead, you repeat vauge mantras of "its flawed therefore it should die" and "we don't need to enforce traffic laws for people to follow them" and "I'm morally right, therefore, you should agree with me"
Just describe a single interaction with police that you belive will come from your not-reform reforms.
I keep trying to explain (to different people making the same assertion) it's not "mine" I have opinions, but we have to solve these together or we're f'd is the reality I'm stressing whether you like the solutions I offer or not. My assertion is that reformist solutions (like you advocate) have and will continue to fail and will lead us to catastrophic consequences according to the latest and best data for which you don't offer a counter other than "yours won't work based of my assessment which openly acknowledges not understanding the argument and placing the blame on the messenger for not articulating it properly rather than my general disinterest in looking at the information and sources you've already provided".
But just to entertain your bizarre (from my perspective) request, an unarmed person trained in deescalation doesn't shoot an innocent person because they didn't bring a gun and they know what they are doing is a basic example.
|
The best way to fix the police issue is a complete overhaul of everything training manual and understanding of the contracts in which they may find themselves. I'm talking one on one counseling every month to ascertain what they've seen or experienced as well as to diagnose any preconception of POC.
After that, implement a one and done rule. You fuck up severely enough, and you're done. Fired with no pay, no legal help, and no benefits. You're SOL and on your own. I think enforcing extreme punishment for being a shit cop, even by accident, would help put people more on a straight and narrower path. You couldn't do what the police do in the military.
|
Again more and more vauge statements that you refuse to ground in the slightest bit of reality. You're basically asking us to "join the conversation" like the Pepsi commercial.
What you present is that having the conversation is the endpoint. You don't care for consequences or solutions. You only want the moral high ground so you can act like you're the most righteous person in the room.
On May 29 2019 03:04 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
The best way to fix the police issue is a complete overhaul of everything training manual and understanding of the contracts in which they may find themselves. I'm talking one on one counseling every month to ascertain what they've seen or experienced as well as to diagnose any preconception of POC.
After that, implement a one and done rule. You fuck up severely enough, and you're done. Fired with no pay, no legal help, and no benefits. You're SOL and on your own. I think enforcing extreme punishment for being a shit cop, even by accident, would help put people more on a straight and narrower path. You couldn't do what the police do in the military.
At least zero will admit that he just doesn't want police to exist.
Man robs a liquor store. Hes got a mask on and a gun. Cop doesn't have a gun and trys to deescalate the situation. Guy leaves liquor store with money on foot. He escapes and no one saw where he went. Event repeats.
|
On May 29 2019 02:14 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2019 02:06 xDaunt wrote:On May 29 2019 01:51 Doodsmack wrote:On May 28 2019 13:46 xDaunt wrote:On May 28 2019 10:27 JimmiC wrote:
The big issue is trust, which Barr does not have with 55%+ of American's. If they do this I hope they get someone imparial or at least can claim to be impartial. Otherwise it is just a political stunt that will further divide the nation. This isn't really an issue. Barr doesn't need the public's trust to do what he needs to do. And as he starts doing it and more information on what really happened becomes public, the leaks and anonymous tipping to media won't have any impact. The FBI, CIA, and other resisting agencies are ultimately powerless to stop Barr. Barr holds all of the cards now. He has ultimate authority to declassify documents courtesy of Trump. He has grand jury investigative and indictment powers. He will get the answer to any question that he wants to ask. And none of the questions that he's asking right now have answers that either democrats or the agencies want to be made public. By all reports, the first round of declassification will occur this week, and potentially as soon as tomorrow. Everyone's going to get to see why the rats are scurrying soon enough. I saw that Gowdy publicly stated that there transcripts containing exculpating evidence (which is interesting that he would reveal this since the existence of the transcripts is classified). That seems to be referring to transcripts of Papadopoulos or other targets of the investigation. Besides those, there are allegedly addition FISA warrants besides Page's. The existence of those is also classified, which means there are illegal classified leaks going on in conservative outlets right now. All that said, the content of what barr reveals will either stand on it's own as evidence of wrongdoing or it wont. There does need to be some sort of opportunity for rebuttal though, since barr has shown a political inclination and is about to publicly release some, but presumably not all, of the investigative actions that were taken. So if there was info suggesting a legitimate basis for the investigation (i.e., info that leans in favor of the investigatiors, which includes Steele's ongoing cooperation with the FBI on unrelated cases which had produced reliable results) he should reveal that too. For example even as Steele was working on his Fusion GPS work, he was working with the FBi on other Russia related cases. And in the past he had worked on the FIFA corruption case. So if barrs releases omit that info, I can only conclude that barr is acting in a partisan manner. I'm not worried about Barr being selective with declassification and public publication. To the extent that there is any information that he looks at that supports what the FBI/CIA did (ie exonerating evidence), he's obliged to disclose it, otherwise his criminal prosecutions will fall apart as a matter of law. And again, he's going to be going after people who know everything that's out there. So it's not like he can hide anything. Except if his goal is not criminal prosecution but public disinformation in an attempt to discredit the investigation into Trump's obstruction of justice and make people forget/ignore the very real things that that investigation found. Precisely. Barr has already shown his hand and has attempted to tip the scales in Trump's favour once. What is to stop him from doing so again? He has a history of doing these types of actions.
Justin Amash has just succinctly explained the issue with Barr and how he has misrepresented the Mueller report in this Twitter thread within the last couple hours:
Link for full thread
|
|
|
|
|
On May 29 2019 03:09 Sermokala wrote:
Again more and more vauge statements that you refuse to ground in the slightest bit of reality. You're basically asking us to "join the conversation" like the Pepsi commercial.
What you present is that having the conversation is the endpoint. You don't care for consequences or solutions. You only want the moral high ground so you can act like you're the most righteous person in the room.
When you don't actually cite/quote/directly reference the "vague statement" and what's vague about it or what you need clarified beyond accusations about what you've interpreted those vague statements to mean it makes it practically impossible to clarify afaik.
I'm honestly caring less and less (though theory reminds me I should care) how people conclude the solutions the two parties and reformism offers are insufficient from a scientific, moral, ethical, practical, selfish, or any other grounding and will lead to catastrophe.
This seems like a basic scientific and political reality only a handful of participants have come to any sort of demonstrated recognition of. Kwark's being the most straightforward and "realistic" imo.
EDIT: people will probably miss this but one reason it's so important to recognize this now and to plan for socialist revolution is because otherwise fascists will blame "others" and make everything worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
